In memoriam: Olympus brings down the curtain on the legacy Four Thirds system

It probably shouldn't be a surprise but it's still a little sad to see it in print: the latest catalogue from four-thirds.org states that production of Olympus's Zuiko Digital line of Four Thirds lenses has been discontinued.

It's been six and a half years since the launch of the last Four Thirds mount camera, so it's understandable that Olympus has decided to move on, but we thought we'd look back at Four Thirds: what it meant and where it led.

The first Four Thirds camera: the Olympus E-1. Built around a 5MP Kodak CCD, the E-1 arrived around two years after Olympus first announced a collaboration with Kodak.

Where it all started

In 1999, Olympus engineer Katsuhiro Takada selected the 4/3"-type sensor as being the optimal size to allow smaller cameras capable of high quality images. Olympus developed the lens mount and communication protocols and was joined by other makers including Kodak, Fujifilm and Panasonic. The Four Thirds system website was launched fourteen years ago tomorrow.

Four Thirds was the first ILC system specifically designed for digital. This not only meant a wholly new lens system, providing the focal lengths that make sense for the sensor size (at a time when most camera companies were making do with selling film lenses mounted on smaller sensors), but also adopting a policy of making telecentric designs, which project light straight onto the sensor, rather than at increasingly challenging angles, towards the edge of the sensor.

Panasonic's first Four Thirds camera: the still beautiful DMC-L1.

Unfortunately, the telecentric lens designs often ended up being relatively large, meaning that the system didn't end up being significantly smaller than APS-C cameras. Unfortunately, the decision to use 4/3"-type sensors also meant that the viewfinders in most of the models were even smaller than those that still plague most low-end APS-C DSLRs.

My personal favorite. The Olympus E-620 was the Four Thirds camera that, to my mind, offered the best balance of size and capability.

While the Four Thirds system is no longer with us, it's worth giving credit for the innovations it played host to. For a start, it was the first interchangeable lens system to offer live view. It wasn't the slickest of implementations: seemingly unsure whether live view was supposed to offer an immediate digital preview (with phase detection still available) or provide the precision of contrast detect AF and live view magnification, the E-330 offered both. And was duly given short shrift by DPReview founder Phil Askey in his review.

It may be out of production, but the Olympus US website says the 90-250mm F2.8 is still in stock. It'll cost you $5999.99

The system evolves

However, the most significant development to come out of Four Thirds, though, was its successor, Micro Four Thirds, the world's first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera system (indeed the system for which the term was coined). Micro Four Thirds persisted with the Four Thirds type sensor but by abandoning the mirror box (and the telecentric design philosophy) was able to fully deliver on the size benefits that had originally been promised.

Without a mirror to move out of the way, live view came into its own and a whole new class of camera was born.

Lessons from the Four Thirds system led directly to the creation of the world's first mirrorless system: Micro Four Thirds. And between Panasonic's GH5 and Olympus's E-M1 II, a lot of interesting things doing on, 18 years after the sensor size was chosen.

Credit should be given to Olympus for working to provide cameras (specifically the E-M1s) that were designed to continue to give good performance for those users who'd bought the highest-end Four Thirds lenses.

Long live Four Thirds

The history of photography is full of defunct systems and obsolete mounts. Even though the curtain has come down on Four Thirds, you can still buy a camera that will make good use of its lenses. The king is dead...

Comments

I sometimes wonder what might have happened if the Olympus engineer had chosen a 4/3 version of 35mm, say 36x27mm, instead of the small 4/3rds size, as a sensor to base their new digital system on.

I reckon many of the world's professional photographers would have jumped ship at that pivotal time in digital history. Both Nikon and Canon were dragging the chain - Canon with its lenses and Nikon with its DX bodies, and lenses.

A 36x27mm sized dedicated DSLR system would have outperformed both, and freed us from the 3:2 shape inherited from Oskar Barnack et al., which has never been the best. Where we're at today might be very different - Oly might have stolen a march on both Nikon and Canon and become the leader, with the resources to corner all the markets.

They chose to downsize instead, to compromise right from the start, relegating themselves to a niche market. History shows that compromise wasn't what the mainstream photographic community wanted - we wanted the best.

I had the E-1 with the 14-54 'kit' lens - it had such a wonderful well-rounded quality to it, in terms of build quality (the turn-key latches on the waterproofed doors were amazing) and picture quality (the lens and the 55-200 I subsequently bought were superb in every way).

Inevitably my head was turned by the next wave of technology, but to be honest if events had made me stick with that kit, I doubt if my pictures would have suffered for it in any meaningful way.

I had the Lumix L1 and thought it was the future. I went out of my way to buy the 25mm 1.4 Summilux (an amazing lens) for another grand, figuring even if the body becomes obsolete I would have committed to a great lens series. Then Panasonic stopped the 4/3 and any further lenses. I dumped it all and vowed never to buy another non-standard lens series that could go defunct. I felt Panasonic had defrauded me, in essence. So now if it's Canon it's the EF. If it's Leica, it's the M. No more farting around.

With smartphone cameras getting better every few months, and mirrorless APS-C cameras gaining steam, the gap between the two is slowly closing so it's making MFT even more "irrelevant." And now we have APS-C cameras (like the Fuji X-T2/X-T20, Sony a6xxx-line, etc) that are about the same size as most MFT bodies, but with larger sensors which offer somewhat better low-light performance. So the MFT line I feel will slowly go extinct (in terms of new additions to the existing line). It's a slowly dying format that will be overtaken by smartphones and larger-sensor mirrorless cameras as prices between APS-C and MFT cameras are about the same, and since physical size is about the same, MFT doesn't really have a whole lot of advantage left, other than interchangability of lenses between different MFT manufacturers.

i disagree. micro 4/3 is better than DSLRs and is thriving, not dying. there are so many advantages to my olympus om-d e-mii over my previous nikon d800. i never look back. smartphone cameras will continue to improve but it's still an add-on feature to a phone. it's limited mostly by size and cost.more manufacturers are making lenses for m4/3 cameras and when it comes to full spectrum or infra-red, m4/3 has many advantages over DSLRs.

"With smartphone cameras getting better every few months, and mirrorless APS-C cameras gaining steam, the gap between the two is slowly closing so it's making MFT even more "irrelevant." "

If smartphone performance increases while APS-C performance increases, how is the gap between the two "slowly closing"? Also, your conflicted opinion ignores that improvements in MFT sensors are occurring at the same time.

There's more to an ILC than body size. In many instances, lenses of equivalent FL are smaller on MFT than APS-C and FF, leading to an overall smaller & lighter kit. This is frequently forgotten when dire predictions like yours are made about the irrelevancy of the format. The IQ delivered by MFT is quite good, especially with the better lenses, but if it isn't a good fit, another option should be used.

IMO, all dedicated cameras are under pressure from smartphones. MFT isn't in a unique position in that regard.

Good point About the lenses. I know some who compare Nikon or Canon DSLRs with pro glass with a pro m4/3 body BUT a cheap kit lens. this will effect color, contrast, and sharpness. now 4/3 pro glass will get less expensive and you don't need as big of a lens as full-frame DSLRs.

when it comes to wildlife photography, smartphones are going nowhere. I'd like to see a smartphone with an 800mm optical stabilized lens for animals small and far away. i can handhold my e-m1 II with my PL100-400 (2x crop factor) and get amazing shots.

The lenses are what do it for me - I can go out and shoot with, say, an 18mm prime attached to my camera and a set of 12mm, 25mm and 45mm fast primes tucked into the side pockets of my cargo pants. Not to mention a weather sealed 35-100mm f2.8 zoom that is small and light enough to keep tucked into my bag on the off-chance I might need it.µ4/3 gives me a great balance between better image quality and portability -so I get more good shots because I'll actually carry the gear.

If MFT was making such great improvements, then why would Olympus, one of the creators of the MFT standard, why would Olympus be looking to dump it if you guys claim that the gap with smartphones and MFT is not closing. I think they realize that more and more people are carrying smartphones with high-resolution cameras and good image quality (Given the configuration found in smartphones these days, even though there are some hurdles they haven't overcome that MFT has). Yes, a wildlife photographer wouldn't use these or even a pro, but for the average user (which I think was the intent with some of their cameras, particularly the E10 Mark I/II and others, they probably saw a decline in sales---either from smartphones or probably from newer mirrorless bodies incorporating different sensors).

I don't mean to flame you, but what makes you think Olympus is looking to dump micro four thirds? Nowhere does it say that in the article nor have I heard it rumored anywhere.

It's lenses for the original, mirrored four-thirds system that are going out of production. However, Olympus is still supporting owners of these lenses by allowing their use with phase-detection autofocus on the E-M1 line.

I'm fortunate enough to own systems for Pentax APS-C, Fuji APS-C and micro four thirds. I enjoy them all for different reasons. But if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose only one, it would be micro four thirds.

What I meant by "dumping" was that Olympus probably won't be creating new cameras based around this format. I didn't mean that they would abandon current customers of the technology, just that they would not be releasing anything new. I'm sure that some third-party brands will try to keep the market alive with lenses as possibly new bodies, but I doubt that Olympus is going to create anything new. That's what i meant to say by using that phrase. And granted the article doesn't explicitly say no new bodies will be released, my thought is that new bodies (if any) will also cease production sometime in the near future as well. Granted, it is possible to still release new bodies and not new lenses.

The last four-thirds DSLR was introduced 6-1/2 years ago. The bodies have long been out of production but the lenses continued until now. Again, the article is refering to original four-thirds mount DSLR lenses... not the mirrorless, micro four-thirds system - which seems to be doing well. You seem confused on this point, as do a few others posting remarks. I stress again that I don't mean to flame you or anyone else.

“If smartphone performance increases while APS-C performance increases, how is the gap between the two "slowly closing"?

If smartphones are advancing faster, that could close the gap. For one thing, smartphones are benefiting from more than just improved sensors. Sophisticated algorithms are being used to address things like dynamic range, which is less common for ILC cameras.

If you read that quote in the full context of my comment, you'll see that I was responding to something said by someone else, which changes the meaning. https://tinyurl.com/ycutphqs

I'm well aware that smartphone tech is advancing faster than probably any other sector of photography, but I don't think we're going to see tiny sensored cameras outstrip much larger ones in the near future, even with computational photography. More likely, I think we'll see ILC manufacturers put some of the same computational approaches to use in their cameras. The Olympus E-M1 MkII and the Panasonic GH5/G9 already have significant processing power on board, so I don't see much of a leap to more advanced computational techniques.

I miss the 14-54 2.8-3.5 in M43. It was a great and reasonably priced kit lens upgrade for 4/3. Zoom range was what I like and the larger aperture helped to blur backgrounds. At the same time not nearly as expensive as the 12-60 4/3 and the current 12-40 m43. I wish it was released as a m43 lens - simply with an integrated adapter tube and possibly updated electronics.

No tears shed here. After having the viewfinder in my OM-D E-M1 replaced three times because of yellow specks forming in each viewfinder, I got disgusted and switched to a Fujifilm X-T1 and then to X-T2. I have to say that I loved how the Olympus felt in my hands. And its construction seemed solid. I still have it and wished my Fuji felt as nice. BUT, weighing all aspects of the two camera brands, Fuji's X-T2 with an APS-C sensor (not 4/3) wins out big time. Companies can kill loyalty by not addressing problems. I personally have no more interest in Olympus.

Same here. I had the EVF replaced 3 times - twice in one camera and once in another. They look and feel robust, but in my experience they are not. I was an Olymus shooter for a number of years, starting with the E-500 I've had almost every body except the E-5. Then I switched to mirrorless and had almost all of the PEN's until the OMD E-M5 arrived. I switched to Nikon because I was fed up with constant EVF failures and battery grip failures (had the grip repaired twice).

I switched to Nikon D600, which I still have along with a D800. Never looked back. The robustness is no comparison. The ergonomy of Nikons cameras trumps the small form factor of the Olympus for me. The OVF's are large and beautiful, pleasure to work with. And finally... the dynamic range and optical consequences of having a large sensor make me happy. Oh, and yeah... 700 shots per charge :)

The nice part is, if you want to return to micro four thirds for any reason and you don't like Olympus, there are all of those interesting Panasonic cameras available. You know, like the GH4 and GH5 that many independent filmmakers use to shoot movies - the kind you go to theaters to see. Or a variety of less-expensive DSLR-style and rangefinder-style cameras. You know, ultra-reliable Panasonic cameras that can use Panny's own Lumix lenses, Olympus lenses and third-party lenses with micro four-thirds mounts. Probably the most complete line of lenses in photography. Life is good.

My first true DSLR camera was an Olympus EVOLT 300. The great little camera with the sideways mirror. I researched many different cameras on DP Review before buying Olympus. I was impressed with their innovative engineering. I moved up to my E3 a couple of years after it was introduced and still love the quality images I can make. I now have five Zuiko lenses, although I mostly use my 12-60mm f/2.8. I still like the OVF and am having a hard time changing over to m4/3 with its EVF. At 75 years old, I don't know how many more cameras I will need. Lol! I will need to decide what to do about buying a new camera this year.

Sure isn't much going on in photography these days. DPreview seems mostly just to explore 'the good ole days' when new cameras were coming out every week almost and seems to revisit old camera reviews just to spark interest in it's own website now. Now it's just a trickle and prices are going up. The camera industry got killed by the smart phone.

The king is not dead. He's just resigns. His faithful followers still live and follow.

No one may not buy the 4/3 body even heavily discounted. But for the lens and flash, it's far away from dying. If Oly has announced - we'll discount lens for 50%, many people will jump .. immediately.

Two weeks ago, there was such discount! But it's 70% !! Once the news spread, people from nowhere rushed to the shop. All lenses were gone in less than half a day. There's still mourning even today from those late comers.

BTW, I think back of the my FD lens when Canon announced that they will end the FD mount .. <sigh> Some nostalgia ..

What killed 4/3 was the horrible panasonic sensors. The E1 was a good start but when they moved from the kodak CCD sensors, their choice of cmos sensors was just really a bad one. IMHO the sensor size was fine and as technology improved, the optics were easily good enough to resolve a 20MP 4/3 sensor. If they had jumped in with a sony sensor rather than those horrible panasonic ones.. 4/3 might still be with us.

don't know about the Olympus cameras because i don't use them (although i do like them) but i know of at least another camera maker that made a great mistake moving from a great Kodak CCD sensor into a terrible CMOS one and the result is a disaster imo!

Sony sensors are certainly better than Panasonic's but even Sony sensors lag behind Kodak's! but Kodak has made bad marketing mistakes and no one uses their sensors as far as i know ...

Oh, y'mean it wasn't high prices for large bodies, lenses and a smaller than the competition sensor? Oh, it was Panasonic fault, huh? PFFITTT!!! Yeah, let's blame them!

While we're at it, let's not forget if it wasn't for that SAME panasonic, then there wouldn't be no Micro Four Thirds, no Live View, No Touch screen, etc...

It's insane how far people bend over for a company that just looks at you, not as a photographer, but as profit. But let's bash Panasonic for not having a rich photography history, and let's turn a blind eye to Olympus and it's money scandals and bribery in the medic field. Yes, lets....

@ MrALLCAPS sorry, did i offend you in my comment or do you own the Panasonic brand by any chance?

i just stated my own PERSONAL view on some topic here! i never intended to offend anyone or any brand ... i have had good as well as bad experiences using the Panasonic brand's stuff too (just as i have had with many others!) and i'm certainly not against any of them!

but you're certainly so badly mistaken on one thing here: NO photography company, and i emphasize on it again: NO photography company out there makes toys for *humanity* necessarily, if that's what you mean by "people" in your loud comment! they're all into it for profit just as majority of doctors and nurses and the paramedics using medic toys (or the pharmaceutical industry making medicine) are in it for profit, or at least to make a living out of what they're doing! PERIOD! so, just take it easy please Mr ALL CAPS!

@ de2000Ohh - and there is another thing you can do with you cameras. You can sell them. There are many who would love to get their hands on a E-3 with a 35-100 F2.8 lens. The E-1's are harder to sell, but that's the same for all cameras of that age. The lenses work fine one some of the M4/3 cameras. And as some has mentioned below - some of those lenses are very good and optical quality does not age :-).

Although, considering Nikon's 1" mirrorless camera line (the NIkon 1) was a flop, I think they should look into doing a camera body for the MFT line. It might be a good answer to Canon and Sony's mirrorless bodies). It probably won't be able to match them in terms of IQ but it would give them another avenue to attack in the same general market.

In fact I think its way too late for that. 4/3 suppose to bring the same quality at much reduced package but the promise never come through. Even today with Micro 4/3 we are not seeing the package size advantage though finally we are seeing on par performance vs APS-C but then we have FF now so the arguments keep going around. That stated the M4/3 had establish itself.

As tech advance we will see such like the Ricoh GXR; the 4/3; and then some

The "package size advantage" is quite apparent if small MFT bodies and lenses are selected. OTOH, the same system boasts some very capable bodies & lenses, but they may come with some additional size & weight. Unlike some other systems, there's a range of options.

When Olympus first came out with 4/3 I don't think they ever meant for it to be a physically smaller system so the telecentric lens design which means bigger lenses wasn't an issue they were seeking to address.

They had no legacy AF system of lenses to support (unlike Nikon and Canon) so they went back to first principles and were free to do what they liked. They decided the 4/3 sized sensor was sufficient and built a system around that not to be small but to simply be a new system with lenses built for the sensor.

As far as Olympus was concerned there was no automatic need to design for a full frame or aps-c sized sensor. Digital for them was starting from scratch. For Olympus, 4/3 was full frame! The 35mm legacy aspect ratio was just that to them.

The "problem" down the line was Panasonic. It is they if I recall correctly that decided to turn 4/3 into a much more compact system by coming up with m4/3. Whoever invented m4/3, the end of 4/3 was then inevitable when they did.

Generally agree with both - Oly started from scratch, and my recollection is that their main selling point was lens performance. That seems strange now, but remember back when Nikon and Canon were going digital, they did not have the lenses. Wide angles in particular were woefully inadequate. Oly had the lenses.

But over time, of course, that advantage disappeared, as Nikon and Canon redesigned their lenses to cope with digital. Size-wise, early Nikon and Canon DSLRs were not even close to compact, so Oly did deliver on their small size promises. Again, over time, the others created smaller offerings.

About Panasonic's electronic viewfinder models, I have a GH1, which is a nice little camera with an awful viewfinder. It is so bad it could never be seriously seen as an alternative to an optical finder. But, over time, improvements have made electronic viewfindered cameras a viable alternative, with natural advantages.

I love the E-1. Each time I sold mine I started missing it, so I sold and bought a few times. I think I will keep my current copy (still in like new condition with new skins from Olympus) for awhile. I still have FT lenses such as 14-54 MkII, 50-200, 50 F2.0 Macro, 14-35mm F2.0 and 35-100mm F2.0. Those old beauties got new life with my E-M1 bodies.

Had some very good years with the E-600 and the 12-60. But I got cautious when m43 gained hold and sold them early enough to still get some good value back. And I have to agree that for me personally the mirrorless concept allows better the combination of small enough with good enough. Good times (gearwise) we live in ...

I think what really happened is that the big players (Sony, Nikon, Canon) now all have their own variants of what Olympus was offering, but with APS-C sensors. The way I saw much of Olympus' line, was it was geared towards street photographers. But now since Sony (with the a-6000 line) and Canon (with their new M-series cameras, Olympus really has some stiff competition. The advantage I saw with the MFT format was that you could use lenses from different manufacturers as long as they followed the MFT spec. But other than that, I never really bought in to the 4/3 or MFT formats (since I do landscapes mainly, I like to have at least 20-24MP so I have enough room for cropping, and so I can get good low-light performance with a larger sensor etc).

When you look at the images taken with the Olympus 2MP bridge camera on last week's throw- back Thursday ,I reckon that 20MP is more than enough. I doubt many people on this site print above A3 so what is the point of 36MP. The MFTs prime lenses are pretty fast and rarely do you need to go above 800ISO. The added advantage is that at wide apertures you still get a decent depth of field.

I agree with you that the MP war is out of hand, but greater depth of field is not always an advantage. You can always stop down (yes, I understand the tradeoffs) but you can't "stop up" to decrease depth of field beyond the limits of the lens.

PedroMZ - Having a smaller sensor doesn't in itself give you more depth-of-field. If you stop-down a lens on a larger sensor you can get the same depth-of-field and, sensor performance differences aside, the same noise performance if you use the same shutter speed (regardless of the apparent f-number difference).

The only point at which you get more depth-of-field is if you've stopped down further than is possible on the larger sensor camera (which is usually well into diffraction-limited territory).

2025 Newsflash "Olympus just announced it has abondoned the u4/3 system for the more versatile nano-4/3 system. The new system promises more compact lenses in an affordable price. Executives swore there will never be a pico-4/3 system. By the way, experts wonder how the new nano-4/3 will fare against medium format cameras currently in the 100MP range , offered in similar size and price specs comparable to an APS-C camera 10 years ago. "

You forgot to mention 35mm and APS-C/H aren't around anymore and medium format is the new replacement of 35mm but the best IQ comes from FF meaning 6x7" / 6x9" sensors. The nano43 is renamed but still same format due to the relative size difference ;-)The best in the field is nano43 since you need assistants to carry all the gear for the other formats.

The 4/3 size never appealed to me, and I have sold my APS-C bodies. After using FF for several generations, I just like the results better.

That does not stop me from feeling sad that people may have invested a lot of money 5 years ago, and will have no upgrades to their body coming. I think their lenses can still be adapted to micro 4/3, so those lenses will have a future for another 20+ years. As I understand it, they are very desirable lenses to own.

Times are tough for camera makers, and some may disappear, or cut models that are not selling. As the market shrinks, Canon seems to be increasing market share, which means others are hurting. Olympus was a great name in Cameras, I wanted a pen back in the 1960's, but they were expensive for what you got. I also wanted a Pentax, but finally bought a Canon FT-QL because camera shops had plenty of them readily available, and lenses were easy to get too.

4/3 size has always appealed to me as I have always detested the oblong 35mm/6x9/aps-c/advantix format. IBIS for all lenses continues to impress me with crystal clear handheld shots. EM1 allows me to continue to use the excellent 14~54, 50, and 9~18, while the m40~150, m25, m45, m75, and even lowly 12~50, add versatility and pleasure shooting. Excellent EVFs of latest models allow old dim eyes to "see" again. I am sooo glad I chose Olympus 8 yrs ago (E-520) to replace my Nikon kit and will continue to enjoy for years to come.

Sad to a degree, would be nice to see them put modern sensors etc. into a couple DSLR models like Sony is still doing with the legacy A-Mount. I bet it would revive the four thirds standard a bit. The only issue to me would be the optical viewfinders which were lets face it, not as great as you needed. I still have my L1, E1, E3, E620 and a few of the great lenses. Hopefully prices will go up now!

I haven't owned any FT cameras but am familiar with the E-1. I was very impressed by it. The CCD sensors had a distinct character in their photos though not the IQ and resolution of today's CMOS sensors.

I always thought that the E-1 was very good looking and functional camera... very innovative for its time.

The 2/14-35 and the 2/35-100 never had so fast and accurate AF as with my E-M1.2 I sold my 2/150 and bought the 2,8/40-150 for it. But the two lenses above will be my Available-Light-Lenses for a long time. The good thing: all FT-lenses work better on the E-M1 and on the E-M1.2 as they ever did with any FT.body (including E-3 and E-5)

RIP the very format that brought me out of 35mm Slide Film and into the Digital Age. I still have my E-1, and use it from time to time, though a lot less since moving to the OM-D EM-1. Olympus remains my favourite camera company, and continues to innovate so much more than the SoCaNikons of the world.

Totally. Though the OM-D EM-1 is now my go-to - the E-1, which has given me amazing pics over the past 12 years, is absolutely still worth using. Plus I have that nifty infrared remote for it - where I have to use an entire iPad on the OM-D!

The article above fails to mention the most important part of the Four Thirds standard ; the standardisation of a lens mount, sensor and lens-to-body communication that allowed lenses and bodies made by the Four Thirds members ( Fujifilm, Kodak, Leica, Lumix/Panasonic, Olympus, Sanyo and Sigma ) to be interchanged.

Sony shows you can easily release a small(ish) APSC camera. Unfortunately lens selection is still a huge factor. Nikon and Canon do good with higher end cameras because of the sheer number of lenses available and even older ones at good prices. I found myself underwhelmed at m43 lens selection (at higher costs too).

With current Micro Four Thirds cameras, noone complains about an "inadequate sensor size". On the contrary, these cameras sometimes even beat the APS-C competition (specifically: Canon) in terms of high-ISO performance. And with lenses like the M.Zuiko 300mm f/4 on a 20 MP camera the Four Thirds format finally starts to really show its strengths.

The Four Thirds DSLR system didn't fail because of sensor size, but because they didn't have competitive sensor technology then, contrary to what Micro Four Thirds has now. Oh, and another reason why they failed was that, overall, they hardly delivered on their promise of smaller and lighter gear.

F1.8 (easier number than 1.9) is also multiplied. In an extreme example F1.8 on a cell phone will look like F10 on FF. M43 isn't nearly as bad but it is still very noticeable. Some phones can fake it will dual lenses.

Actually, the mount standardization failed because most of the members did not adopt it.

Fuji continued to use F mount until they brought out their own X mount, Leica only sold rebranded Panasonics, preferring their own poorly thought out DMR solution for R mount and later moving to M and now a series of new mounts, Sigma also preferred their own stillborn mount, while Sanyo never did anything in the interchangeable lens world. Panasonic dabbled in 4/3rds mount, but when they decided to get serious they also would introduce a new mount, the one that killed 4/3rds.

Universal mounts have been tried before, and have failed to become universal mounts before (see K mount, the most notably earlier attempt)

@ewitte12: No idea what "ratings" you're citing; whatever they are, they don't describe reality. (DXOmark, perhaps? Their ISO assessment has been methodologically flawed in more than one aspect right from the start.)

The studio scene comparison isn't methodologically perfect, either; some parts of the image will show more detail for Canon, some for Olympus. But, overall, to me it looks very much as if at higher ISO the Canon results at least lose the small advantage they have in pixel resolution through a small disadvantage in noise.

If I had to choose between Canon APS-C and Olympus MFT and high-ISO performance was paramount, I would both see on par.

If general low-light performance was important, though, I would choose the Olympus, because of its significantly more advanced (and sensor-based) stabilization.

low light ISO #s were DXOMark everything else was based on the surface area of the sensors. IE 4 times the total light from m4/3 to FF is about 2 stops. Comparing ISO performances its pretty accurate. The m4/3 cameras I tested obviously were at least 1 stop behind my d7200.

4/3 was born when DLSR's had 6M APS-C sensors and the pixel wars had not started and at a time when sensors were more costly and difficult to make. 4/3 was perhaps a reasonable size to squeeze 5-6M pixels into.With the advent of APS-C and FF sensors in the 24-50M range the 4/3 is now penalized in its ability to complete (this applies to the M4/3 as well). What make the current M4/3 cameras doubly disadvantaged is they are not cheaper than their APC-C competition either from a camera or system perspective.

The one advantage 4/3 had was to offer smaller lenses and larger zoom ranges. Given that you can find multiple APS-C zoom lenses in the 18-250 and 16-300 range it should have been possible to make a 4/3 lens in the 12- >250mm (eq. 24-500++) range. As a travel camera a 4/3 camera with a long range zoom lens could have been an appealing product, sadly no one ever built one...

Yet despite that, it's clear that there is still in demand. And Oly/Panasonic++ are bringing out even more new cameras with more innovations at a rapid rate. And lenses too. Don't forget the 75-300 and 100-400.

"but by abandoning the mirror box (and the telecentric design philosophy) was able to fully deliver on the size benefits that had originally been promised."

And they abandoned a line of lenses with superb image quality for a collection of mostly mediocre or worse lenses, hanging a Pro label on some truly second rate products (e.g. 12-40 f/2.8, 7-14 f/2.8, 12-100 f/4...) and a couple of great lenses such as the 40-150 f/2.8 and 75 f/1.8.

They've turned themselves into a maker of mostly small and cute gear that is an insult to the Olympus legacy.

We'll have to see what Panasonic delivers with their newly announced 12-60 and 50-200 lenses. Perhaps they bought the rights from Olympus to build those SWD lenses in the M43 mount? They've already delivered a 7-14 f/4 which almost matches the original F43 version from Olympus.

I just used my new OM-D E-M5II for the first time today. I got ready to charge the battery but find I cannot remove the battery. The battery lock knob is stuck in place. How do I get it unfrozen so the battery will release?

I loved the format. I have shot with E-300, E-330, E-500, and E-3. I still have the E-3 and love it. They started the best format ever. I am now shooting with the OMD-EM1. I went to the Micro Four-thirds only because it was the only upgrade offered by the Olympus. I was hoping that they would push onto a predecessor to the E-5. Sad news, but I have learned that Olympus leads, so lets see where they take us.

Such a timely article. There was a pretty solid Four Thirds kit at the local swap meet today - an E-500 with a FL-50 flash, a 50/2 ED macro, a 14-45, and a 40-150. The price was a little steep, but that macro made it very tempting.

Those old Four Thirds cameras were underrated. The E-420 was my first DSLR, and the 14-42 and 40-150 kit lenses were super sharp and produced great colors, better than the Pentax K20D I eventually upgraded to. It's an obsolete system and the glass was crazy expensive, but those were some of the most compact DSLRs you could get for a long time.

The glass WAS expensive, but today it is pretty darn cheap. Those wonderful $2,500 f/2.0 zoom lenses are now selling for around $1,000 each on ebay. Some in mint condition too. The 11-22mm lens I paid $800 for can be had today for around $200.

But like you said... it is an obsolete system. Which means you can use that great glass with an old camera with an old sensor, or you can adapt it to a newer M4/3 camera. And if you do that, then you need a $189 adapter, and the lens is twice as big as a similar M4/3 lens.

The e-1 for me is still the gold standard for ergonomics. I loved shooting with it, as long as i could stay at iso 400 or below.

There are still a few shots taken with the e-1 in my weddings gallery on my website. I still have a few sample albums as well, and they stand the test of time. www.witzgallphotography.com and see if you can spot them.

I've owned mine for what must be at least 10 years now and still use it regularly on my E-M1. Despite many lamenting the demise of the 4/3 cameras, the E-M1 completely rejuvenated my 4/3 lenses (7-14mm, 14-35m, 35-100mm and the 90-250mm). They all work so much better on the E-M1 than they ever did on my E-3 or E-5.

I have 4/3rds Zuiko D lenses working with my E-M1. The 12-60 SWD is pinned to the camera all the time. The 7-14, 50-200 and 50 Macro are simply outstanding lenses from any point of view. For me, Olympus Zuiko lenses they simply rock.

I have the earlier non SWD 50-200 which hunts on the E-M1 but other than sports photography it is adequate.Its IQ is wonderful. People forget that given that this is F 2.8-3.5 for a 100-400 equivalent it was very good value for money.

The IQ compromise doesn't mean "your photos are always worse looking than larger formats". It means that "If you need in extreme situation the best possible quality, you need larger format".

Meaning if 95% of your work can be done with a 3-5Mpix, then 16Mpix is not worse at all compared to 50Mpix as both are way above required quality an 50Mpix doesn't offer better quality over 16Mpix at that point. but when there comes the 5% of the cases where you need 16Mpix or a 32Mpix. Then 50Mpix will win.

But if you are carrying all the time a lighter, smaller and faster camera, who cares that 5% of the time you are at compromise level, when at 95% of the time you can use camera longer, get more changes, and have it with you more often?

The ultimate camera is that is always with you so you never leave without it. It will never run out of battery or never malfuonenction or never get fail you.It will always have more Mpix than needed etc. There is no such. I take 4/3" over any other any day

This is why I abandoned Olympus. Back in the 80s I bought into the OM system and loved it. The OM-4Ti was a jewel of a camera, with innovative things like the dual macro flash attached to the front of the lens and the tele-auto tube. It gave beautiful results without the bulk and weight of Nikon and Canon systems. But then they abandoned us, releasing nothing more, just a re-release of the OM-3 at an absurd price. When they went to digital they threw us to the dogs and developed an entirely new lens mount.

So when I went digital I decided the main criterion would be a manufacturer that doesn't abandon its users, and bought Nikon. Seems I was right, Olympus have done it again.

pdelux: Actually, Olympus did abandon OM users. There was over a decade between the last significant OM release and the introduction of the 4/3rds system. For much of that time you couldn't buy more than a handful of OM items from Olympus.

They spent that period making ZLR's, the film equivalent of superzoom P&S's.

Virtually none of the m43rds lenses are as good as the best 4/3rds lenses. Perhaps the new high ends by Olympus and Panny are, but tele centricity was lost and is not part of the standard of m43rds- and in some ways it shows. I have shot the 4/3rds Panny Leica 25mm F1.4 vs its m43rds counter part and clearly the former is the better one. Same with several Olympus 4/3rds originals.. there's a certain contrast that is harder to get on the new system.

They also didn't have in the specification software distortion correction- they didn't need it pretty much for the most part. Chromatic aberrations were far less common than on the m43rd lenses counterparts.

This kind of bite is something Fuji seems to be doing from the get go in nearly all their X-system lenses. That said, the high end of the m43rds lenses are pretty darn good, finally.

Put Olympus 12-40mm against ie. 14-54mm and 12-40mm wins.Take a 60mm Macro and you are nearly same with 50mm macro. 300mm f/4 is sharpest lens Olympus has never made, there is nothing like that on 4/3 SHG catalog.

We can go and take almost any 4/3 lens and mount them to E-M1 and the E-M1 software correction will get far better results out of the lens than any 4/3 body does. Meaning sharper corners, less CA etc.

And looking the premium m4/3 lenses, they beat what the non-SHG lenses for 4/3 were for most parts. There are exceptions like 15mm and 9mm body cap lenses that doesn't even get brand "Zuiko" as they are so bad (and technically not lenses, but body caps).

Please check what I wrote again. I did give credence to the latest top tier lenses of m43 - and for that 12-40 you cited the correspondent category is the 12-35 SHG.

Also I don't buy necessarilynthw top tier m43 lenses bear the SHG's but if only one lens does that it doesn't detract from the point

There's a reason after all why m43 specified software lens corrections in its standard which btw distort the data a bit vs a true optical correction. There's a reason why Olympus touted telecentricith which is not part of M43.

Hell even the first lens you mentioned has a barrel distortion wide not even the standard grade 4/3 14-54 ever had.

When it was first announced, I thought the 4/3 system with a whole new lens mount was a bad idea. It still is. However, I bought into the m43 system though. It is not my main system but I just bought another m32 lens for an upcoming trip. The size of the entire system was the primary driving force. APS-C can be too big for certain situations. FF is just plainly too big. OTOH, MF is now getting my attention for ultimate IQ.

4/3 lenses were quite large as they were, adapting them to m4/3 would need to add free space behind the last element and thus make them even larger. Olympus dediced an adapter is sufficient for people who want that.

I still remember all the reviews of the e330 that asked: 'Why would anyone want this 'Live View' feature anyway?' Olympus has been a great innovator, though it's features such as 'Live View' have been marketed most successfully by other companies. Another example of Olympus over the horizon thinking would be the E10 and E20 DSLRs (in fact the first 'Live View' DSLRs) that were mirrorless designs; the mirrorless DSLR trail that Olympus cut was then followed to market success by Sony.

The 'R' is for 'reflex' which refers to the through the lens view. The E10 and E20 have no mirror but a fixed prism that transmits an image to the sensor while still reflecting that image to the finder; a "semi-transparent" prism. It's a 'through the lens view' and hence a 'reflex' view.

Reflex refers to reflexion or reflection which is what mirrors and prisms do. The very first cameras used through the lens viewing (you focussed on a ground glass screen and then substituted a sensitised glass plate for the actual exposure) but they definitely weren't reflex.

TLRs have a 45° mirror behind the top lens to reflect the light onto the focussing screen. That's the reflex part. The bottom lens projects onto the film and has a shutter and an iris. While both lenses have matching focal lengths you don't look through the taking lens and you can't generally check depth of field apart from on the focussing scale, but the viewfinder doesn't black out either. View cameras were around for thirty years before TLRs.

Thanks for that explanation Sittatunga. I don't think we are in disagreement.Yes, you are correct. Most all of the earliest cameras were what could be termed 'view cameras' with a viewing glass at the focal plane. The first photograph (a chemically fixed image) was taken in 1826 by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce and definitely not with a 'reflex' camera. :)TLRs: Though not the first TLRs, Rollei refined and popularized the type starting about 1929 Judged by those two dates, view cameras predated the TLR by something more like ninety to one hundred years and that's not counting the 'cameras' that artists were using by the 1500's Artists had to 'fixed' the projected image with pencil and paint for about 300 years, until chemistry know how caught up with lens and camera design.

That depends on how you feel about terminological inexactitudes. A MILC is not a DSLR by definition. Digital cameras don't use electronics to reflect light. (Not all DSLRs have interchangeable lenses either.)For example, it may be correct to call a spade an agricultural implement but it's wrong to call a trowel a spade.

The 'reflex' in SLR has nothing to do with reflection. It refers to the flipping action of the mirror when the shutter release is activated - a 'reflex reaction'.As Richard said, 'mirrorless' SLR is an oxymoron.

@quietrich - Finally, somebody got it right and pointed out to so obvious: the difference between 'refleX' and 'reflecT'. Both words mean diifferent things and for a reason, as far as SLR cameras are concerned.

@All others You may call "mirrorless DSLR" an oxymoron but a lot of people will in the future use that frase, and they are right as far as a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is for all intents and purposes a DSLR.

@quietrich - The mirror in a twin-lens reflex never flips. That type of camera has been called a reflex camera for well over 90 years.@LFPCPH - The Olympus C-1400L of 1997, the C2020Z and the C2100UZ of 2000 to name but three. They all had optical reflex viewfinders and built-in zoom lenses.

@ Sittatunga. I addressed the notion of 'SLR', not 'TLR'. However, here is a dictionary definition:

reflex camera noun 1. a camera in which the image is composed and focused on a large ground-glass viewfinder screen. In a single-lens reflex the light enters through the camera lens and falls on the film when the viewfinder mirror is retracted. In a twin-lens reflex the light enters through a separate lens and is deflected onto the viewfinder screen."According to this with an 'SLR' the light falls on the film "when the viewfinder mirror is retracted". Ergo - 'mirrorless SLR' is an oxymoron.All the best.

LFPCHP-My old Olympus E20 is certainly a DSLR with reflex/through the lens viewing and it has an excellent non-interchangeable zoom lens. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, it and the even older Olympus E10 used a semi-trans-missive prism not a flipping mirror + prism to direct light to both the sensor and the finder. It's an elegant design with many virtues that Olympus should not have abandoned.

When you call something mirror-less it means that it does the same as something with a mirror - just without the mirror. Like the word wire-less means that a radio has a connection like with a wire - just without the wire. A mirrorless camera is a DLSR without the mirror. So it is a mirrorless DSLR. Where is the contradiction in terms ?

@LFPCH. A mirrorless DSLR is like a rangefinderless rangefinder camera. That's the contradiction in terms. A digital camera with a detachable electronic viewfinder does not automatically become a DSLR when you attach the viewfinder any more than a camera with a wireless connection does when you connect it to a mobile phone or tablet to control it remotely, but they both do the same thing as a DSLR (i.e. allow viewing through the taking lens) without the mirror.

A "rangefinderless rangefinder camera" is not a contradiction in terms. The term describes a camera that does not have a rangefinder but have some other technology that does the same. If a camera with a EVF has some technology that assist manual focusing, then it could well be described as a "rangefinderless rangefinder camera". Though is not a common term, there are many cameras that live up to that description.

It had a pretty long run. I remember seeing 4/3 at PMA while they still had OM-4Ti bodies on display. The concept behind telecentric made sense and Olympus staff sold it hard, but history shows it was a Betamax idea (Arguably better but consumers didn't notice.)

Panasonic it's your turn now. While I'm only one consumer with one opinion, I won't buy any future main cameras unless they are full frame....and for a "B" camera I might still go for an APS-C, but m4/3 sensors are just too small and sacrifice light sensitivity as well as such a large crop.

True. Bigger sensors are there for a reason. better light gathering and better picture composition... slightly sacrificing on portability...even the difference between FF and APS-C result is day and night..

Latest in-depth reviews

Panasonic's premium compact DC-ZS200 (TZ200 outside of North America) boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. There are tradeoffs that come with that big lens, however. Find out all the details in our in-depth review.

The Hex Raven DSLR bag holds a ton of gear and employs a low-profile design that doesn't scream "I'm a camera bag." We think it's a little too bulky for everyday use, but makes for a great option when traveling with a lot of gear.

The Sony a7 III sets a new benchmark for full-frame cameras thanks to its compelling combination of value and capability. It's at home shooting everything from sports to portraits, and is one of the most impressive all-around cameras we've seen in a long while. Find out all the details in our full review.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for taking pictures of people and events? Reliable autofocus, good image quality in low light, and great colors straight from the camera are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting people and events, and recommended the best.

The new HP DesignJet Z6 and Z9+ supposedly offer "the fastest printing capabilities available on the market today," all while using fewer ink tanks, and featuring useful add-ons like a built-in vertical trimmer.

In an effort to streamline production and minimize confusion, RED has announced that it is simplifying its product lineup to three main cameras. As an added bonus, this change dramatically drops the prices for all three options.

Fujifilm's new X-T100 is an SLR-style mirrorless camera that takes the internals of the X-A5, including phase-detect AF, and adds a fully articulating LCD and high-res OLED viewfinder. The X-T100 is priced at a very reasonable $599/€599 body-only and $699/€699/£619 with a 15-45mm lens.

Panasonic's latest firmware update for its GH5S, GH5 and G9 series of cameras was leaked in Japan earlier today and is now being officially announced a week early. But don't get too excited – you still won't be able to download it until May 30th.

We've been saying for years that the term "lens compression" is misleading, but Lee Morris over at Fstoppers has put together a useful video that explains why this is the case, and demonstrates it with two easy-to-understand examples.

Last week, some 'leaked' photos were published online that purported to show a DJI Phantom 5 drone with interchangeable lens camera and several prime lenses. The rumor was widely reported, but DPReview has learned that those images do not, in fact, show a Phantom 5 at all.

Award-winning fashion and celebrity photographer Markus Klinko recently tested out the Godox EC-200 flash extension head. Actually, he tested out four of them, creating a quad-flash ring light alternative that works great for both beauty and close-up work.

According to a recent investor presentation, Sony intends to occupy the top slot in the overall camera market by the end of 2020, beating back Canon and Nikon by boosting its interchangeable lens systems.

Google has finally added the ability to mark your favorite images in Google Photos, so they can be filtered into a dedicated album. The service is also planning to a social network-like "heart" button that lets you like other people's photos.

We've been messing around with Apollo, an iOS app that allows you to add 3D lighting effects to images using depth information, and have to say we're impressed with what it's capable of – but that doesn't mean we don't have a few requests for the next version.

The new lightweight laptop packs a whole lot of photo- and video-editing punch. The laptop can be specced out with a Core i9 processor, 16GB of RAM, 1TB of SSD storage, NVIDIA graphics with 4GB of GDDR5, and a 4K display with 100% Adobe RGB coverage.

It looks like Canon is getting into sensor sales. The three specialized CMOS sensors the company recently demoed—including a 120MP APS-H model and an ultra-low light sensor—have been listed for sale through a distributor in the US.

Kodak Alaris has launched a new single-use disposable camera in Europe. Called the Kodak Daylight Single Use Camera, this 800 ISO film camera is supposedly ideal for parties, weddings, and similar events.

Computer vision company Lucid and cinema camera maker RED have partnered to create an 8K 3D camera that can capture 4-view (4V) holographic images and video in real-time. The camera is designed to work with RED's upcoming holographic Hydrogen One smartphone.

If Canon and Nikon do get into high-end mirrorless, it's almost certain that they'll do everything they can to maintain compatibility with their existing mounts. But, asks Richard Butler, wouldn't it be more interesting if they built a small, niche system to live alongside their existing DSLRs?

You know that feeling when you're already all suited up and out on a spacewalk outside the International Space Station, and only then do you realize you forgot to put the SD card in your GoPro? No? Us either... but one astronaut on the ISS sure does.

From 2015 to 2017, filmmaker Macgregor and his crew spend many months traveling back and forth on the famed Mauritanian Railway—the so-called 'Backbone of the Sahara—to document the grueling journey endured by merchants who regularly travel atop this train. This beautifully-executed short doc is the result.

Synology has added a new 6-bay NAS to its DiskStation+ series, and it's aimed squarely at photographers and medium sized businesses. The DS1618+ can handle up to six 12TB drives, giving it a max capacity of 72TB, or up to 60TB in RAID 5.

Our original gallery for Tamron's new 70-210mm F4 had portraits, slow-moving wildlife and city scenes, but was sorely missing fast action. We remedied that by photographing some motorcycles flying through the air.

This week on DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan prepare for the summer holiday season by putting several popular waterproof cameras to the test. If you're considering a rugged camera for the beach or pool this summer, or if you just want to see what a Chris and Jordan fishing show might look like, tune in.

Soulumination is a non-profit organization that provides life-affirming legacy photography to families facing serious medical conditions, completely free of charge. This video shares the work they are doing.

Fujifilm EU seems to have accidentally leaked an unreleased camera to the masses. The leaked page details a new "X-T100" camera that will share most of its specs with the X-A5, but includes an EVF, deeper buffer, and 3-way tilting touchscreen.

LA-based director and cinematographer Phil Holland of PHFX recently joined forces with Gotham Film Works to create something out-of-this-world. Using a special aerial camera array, Holland shot a flyover of New York City using not one, not two, but three 8K RED Weapon Monstro VistaVision cameras.